The Case for Universal Preschool

But the studies clearly show benefits for preschool kids in kindergarten. In a study of 3,500 incoming kindergarteners in Oklahoma, researchers at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute and Center for Research on Children in the United States found that as the kids entered kindergarten those enrolled in the state program had better reading, math, and writing skills than kids who were either not enrolled in preschool or who spent time in the federally funded Head Start program. The benefits even extend beyond lower income groups.

The benefits dissipate because the pressures of life for lower income kids increase as they get older and because of the failures of elementary schools. It seems coldhearted to deny kids those early benefits just because other obstacles interfere with long term benefits. Perhaps Kalmia and Snell would refuse a dehydrated man a bottle of water in a desert just because he’s going to die of thirst anyway.

In addition, the other benefits of preschool — the socialization for both the kids and the parents — can’t be summarized in a quantitative study. Yet, parents must be aware of these gains. Why else would 70% of kids attend preschool at enormous sacrifices by parents? Mothers and fathers are not illogical. They make these sacrifices because they see gains.

The fact is that preschool is no longer a luxury. Middle-class families sacrifice vacations and second cars in order to afford to give their kids three hours a day of pre-kindergarten. Government funded universal pre-k can aid struggling working families.

Preschool education is an area that would benefit from a voucher program. Unlike regular education, there are many private programs already operating in church basements and YMCAs across the country. There is no need to build new infrastructure or hire new workers. Just give families a voucher to attend one of these existing programs provided they passed certain accreditation standards. This voucher program can be limited by income in order to keep costs down.

The benefits of preschool are obvious to parents. Nearly every family who can afford it sends their kid to preschool. Let’s give a hand to those who are struggling to give their kids the opportunities that should be available to all.

Laura McKenna is a political science professor who lives in New Jersey. She blogs at 11D.

Click here to view the 74 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

74 Comments, 74 Threads

1.
Steven Powell

“Let’s give a hand to those who are struggling to give their kids the opportunities that should be available to all.”

No. If you want to – use your own money to open your own low-cost pre-school. Become a “community organizer” and solicit donations from local businesses. Don’t take my money. I’ll spend time with my kids and teach them more than they’ll ever learn in pre-school. I will also have the added benefit of bonding with my children. I don’t want them to separate from me when they’re 3 or 4. I’m going to enjoy every last minute I have with them.

If you want to support the program, go ahead. Don’t take my money to do it.

Pre-school is vital especially for children with special needs and low income. Most communities already offer pre-school free or at low cost for those students.

I pay over $1000 a month to send my son to full time private preschool (Montessori.. love it!) and he will reaping the benefits for years to come. I don’t begrudge the cost although I do wish the child care tax credit was more. Currently, it is only $5000 per family no matter how many children you have. If you are a working mom with two kids, day care costs can be as high as $24,000 a year!

I will probably stay home a year when my next child is born in the spring but I will have to return to work by the time that child is 18 months or I will lose my job.

“Why else would 70% of kids attend preschool at enormous sacrifices by parents?”

Who has quantified the enormous sacrifices? I’d like to see the data, because I know many parents for whom sending their kids to preschool is not much of a sacrifice. For many working parents paying for preschool is simply part of the family budget, no more a sacrifice than the second car or clothes for work. Should the government pay for those costs too?

“It seems coldhearted to deny kids those early benefits just because other obstacles interfere with long term benefits. Perhaps Kalmia and Snell would refuse a dehydrated man a bottle of water in a desert just because he’s going to die of thirst anyway.”

This seems to be an example of the typical liberal approach of ignoring that choices must be made. Paying for preschool means we cannot fund some other program, perhaps one with more important tangible benefits. Sorry, but I might refuse that doomed man a bottle of water if I had to give that extra water to a child with a better chance of survival.

“The benefits dissipate because the pressures of life for lower income kids increase as they get older and because of the failures of elementary schools.”

Yet, you oppose school vouchers that would give lower income kids better alternatives to the public schools that have been failing despite years of reform and increasing budgets. Even if I agreed with your position on preschool vouchers, why would I want to spend precious tax dollars now on benefits that will dissipate anyway?

Listen Missy,You are not going to use my tax dollars to foist off your job on the government.

Typical Manhattan beltway elite thinking. “The goverment owes me”

I wish I made 40000 a year, yet we did it, we taught our kids at home, we made friends of other families so they would be “socialized”. We did without, we did what we had to.

Don’t like carting the stroller down the stairs? Move. Can’t afford to, get the swackhammer out of town for pete’s sake. New York isn’t the only place to live in this country. Kid’s will do better with a little room to run anyway, someplace to ride a bike, watch a butterfly, get into the “clean dirt”.

Kid’s are not “accessories” that you can leave here or there. They are the next generation, and I REFUSE to let the goverment raise them.

Children are suffering from being thrown into “socializing” long before they are ready. There is study after study that shows that a child, especially boys, cared for at home until he is ready, usually 7 or 8, will do better, no matter what his socioecomic status.

Give me a break, I have enough people with their hand out without adding your kid’s to the pile.

Mr. Powell, I agree. Notice two different phrases in the author’s argument: “give” and “available”. I would argue that if there are programs through various agencies already in existence, then those programs are already “available” to all parents. The difference is in what parents choose to pay for. Hence the “give”. The author might be (probably is) happy to pay the way out of her own pocket…but then says the greater “we” should pay the way for every child. We should “give” by way of taxation.

So like you, Mr. Powell, I say no, thanks. As a property owner, I already pay for local and state schools. As an income tax payer, I already contribute for federal subsidies so that all are “given” equal opportunity. I ought not have to “give” more (involuntarily) so that the playing field is leveled between pre-K and K for some children. That opportunity is already “available” for those who choose it – so let them choose it, if they will. That’s what liberty is all about.

It’s too bad you hate your son so much Laura. Delivering him into the care of others at that age is a mistake you will regret later and at leisure. Why bother having children if you want others to raise them? And you sure as hell have no excuse to tax me to pay for your child – you had the fun, now you pay the bills. BTW the latest studies on the effect of pre-school (Head Start in this case) are that the early positive effects wear off by third grade – so there is NO long term net benefit.

“He learned how to sit down in a circle group. (Well, he somewhat mastered that skill.) He played with other kids his age and they worked out differences over Lego and Power Rangers. He did art projects. He was in a show and sang a song on stage. He separated from me. I met other parents of three-year-old boys and became less isolated. Going to school and recovering from the walk provided structure to our lives. I didn’t have to spend the day battling over TV time. I got feedback on his strengths and weaknesses.”

This used to be the purpose of kindergarten. Instead, preschool has become the new kindergarten and kindergarten has become an all day requirement.
If you feel the “need” to send your children to preschool, then do so. But do not ask me to foot the bill. Instead of shipping my three year old son to preschool to learn how to sit in a circle, we’ll be in the backyard digging for worms. He will have the rest of his life to learn “how to sit”.

Thank you, no. My 5 have done fine without it, in fact only one went to kindergarten. My 2 youngest are the only ones left in at home. Both are testing off the charts and are socialized just fine. Just like their older siblings.
Pre-school and day care might fit your values…they don’t fit mine and I don’t want to pay for them. I already am forced to pay for enough stuff that I have issues with.

United States k-8 education is the worst in the industrialized west. Now a liberal wants more money, and MORE responsability? Sure, right after you close the American school system for a year, disband the public teachers unions and rehire the teachers back after full and complete competancy testing. Giving these people more ‘anything’ is a mistake, getting it out of their selfish clutches should be the goal.

70% of parents buy the teachers’ union and the MSM crap that they have to, so their children can become “socialized”, that they become good followers and citizens (make that sheep). That means following the loudest bully, I think… You say yourself that this putative advantage evaporates. And who does the measuring? The university/professions that have the biggest stake in the perpetuation of the system.
What is amazing is that a growing percentage of parents are bucking the systems and homeschooling with tremendous personal sacrifice despite decades of propaganda. These mavericks and independent thinkers are where the future leaders will come from.

Maybe in your enclave, but not in mine. The movement here is in the opposite direction.

They make these sacrifices because they see gains.

They make these sacrifices because they want two incomes. I doubt if you ever even considered sacrificing that second income.

Socialization is overrated for young children. What young children need is consistency. My bar is set far higher – doing well in dumbed down public school is easy.

And your attempt to separate vouchers for preschool from public school is ridiculous. If I can get a voucher to send my kid to a church daycare, I should be able to get one to send my kid to a private high school.

As for the inner city, where I used to live, what they need is a family structure, not another government give away. Daycare is no replacement for a father.

I’m strongly in favor of the availability of pre-school programs, but just as strongly against “Government funded universal pre-k” — I’ve actually worked, briefly, in early childhood education, and my mother was a pioneer in early childhood education in California from about 1950 well into the 1980s, as everything from the director of a parent coop nursery school to a state-level officer in the National Association for the Education of Young Children and as director of a publicly-funded childcare operation for low income parents. She even spent summers running Head Start Programs.

As long as we have a choice of programs and can vote with our feet — as we did with our own now adult children — it’s possible to find the program (or in many cases no program) that meets the needs of any particular child. Make it part of the public schools, with the usual teachers’ unions and credentialing nightmares, and you’ll just have left-wing indoctrination beginning a few years earlier. I actually took some graduate courses from a masters program for early childhood education in the mid-1970s — it was an incredible exercise in reading Marxist cant taught by people who didn’t even understand it: when I wrote a serious paper on one of the books, the professor had to take it to a Marxist colleague in the philosophy department, whose only response was “I don’t agree with his reading of Hegel and critique of Freire here, but the argument he’s made is certainly a highly defensible reading from the texts.” No thanks to more state control and radical education theory.

My mother’s program was regularly cited as a model by state evaluators, but the secret of her success was the quality of her staff and an attention to detail and the development of each child working closely with their parents, that I’ve never seen anywhere since at any level of education. Even though the program was for low income parents, they all had to pay something, and they had to be involved with their kids. She understood problems with working and the like, and often met with parents on weekends or late at night, when it mattered. But, she was old-fashioned in her demand for acceptable behavior from kids and parents, and very matter of fact with everyone. When she died more than 15 years after she retired, we heard from close to a hundred of her former students how she had changed their lives, going to bat for them with the public schools, encouraging them to use their minds and bodies, and to believe in themselves and to become successful.

Re-reading your article I see that I was unfair – you did not do it for the second income, like 99% of the people I know who have their children in daycare. I apologize.

However, I do sincerely believe that a toddler is better at home being nurtured and learning discipline from a parent. And I reject the entitlement attitude where government is expected to meet every need.

There is a difference between ensuring equal treatment before the law and ensuring social equality.

My experience is quite different – raising three children in a little inner-city row house, with my wife teaching them all to read. The oldest is now a National Merit scholarship winner. Friends would bring us their children on weekends because they didn’t know what to do with them – daycare did everything. Then there were the couples whose children were in daycare from two weeks, which I think is almost criminal.

Most studies also show that the longer children are in our public schools the worse they do compared to those in other countries. US children do well in standardized tests in the early grades by high school they are in the middle of the pack internationally. The exception, home schooled and those in private schools. And you think it is a good idea to increase the time they spend in public schools? The fix isnt more time in failing schools, it is to remedy what is wrong with our schools. Vouchers and merit pay will do far more than Pre-K. Reduce the power of teachers unions and reduce goverment interference and return school policy to local levels as it used to be and you will see the problem disappear. You must work for the goverment. They are the only ones who see a situation that government has screwed up that thinks the situation is more government.

Why have kids if your gonna pawn them off on the system? Children NEED their parents to educate them NOT the gov’t!! Sounds like you use T.V. to babysit your child. Why not get down on the floor and actually play with your kids? THAT is what they need. My child is in 11th grade and is home schooled and has already started University. We have always had more than enough socialization through neighbors,church,library,robotics,and a vast array of activites in our community(Science museum,Art museum,Botanical Garden,History museum etc, etc).
Why should I pay for pre-school for someone else to negate their responsibility as a parent?NO THANKS!
Pure Liberal B–Sh–!!

I’m always curious how researchers select the time place and subjects to perform their socialization experiments.
This reference study was done in Oklahoma by a group from Georgetown U. It would appear that a specific outcome might be achieved by finding a suitable environment.Why not do this in a suburban Wash. DC setting ? Of course the results might be different and then the study would not have relevance.
The relevance sought in the study was a finding which would support the groups objective that universal pre school is a desired and achievable goal. It has benefits which can be used to convince parents and school districts to place ever younger children in the ever expanding preschool government education programs.
Just think for a moment isn’t this exactly what the study hoped to find? How great is that?
I would be willing to bet Ms McKennas graduate work covered this subject in some detail long before she began posting on PJ.

I am a psychotherapist with some 30+ years working with kids and adolescents. Children from the public school sector see me in far greater proportion than their numbers would seem, and children who have been home schooled, private school or who have parents who see to thier children’s socialization seem to have a smaller presence then their numbers would indicate.

Can I prove that, no, records are routinely destroyed after a period of time, but my memory is fairly good

In 1972 movie critic Pauline Kael was astounded that Nixon was re-elected, saying it was impossible because no one she knew had voted for him.
Now Laura McKenna writes, “Nearly every family who can afford it sends their kid to preschool.” and reveals the limits of her circle of acquaintances.
In my circle nearly everyone home schools. Increasing our taxes to provide preschool for others increases our struggle to keep a parent at home. I see it as injust.

First of all I agree that many of the things being fostered in pre-school are things/activities children used to get in Kindergarten. I also agree that too many parents have yielded too much responsibility for their children to the schools. Parents are so busy pushing little Susie to excel that they’ve forgotten that she is a child.

Shame on a parent who fails to socialize their own child. How did kids learn to “sit in a circle” before the days of pre-school? As I recall parents used to do what is now done in pre-shool. Maybe it is time for parents to understand that they have to spend time with their kids and not palm them off on TV, video games and pre-schools.

I know of a place where you can have your child taught to sit in a circle, interact with other preschoolers, meet other moms with kids, and get an excellent values education to boot, and it’s FREE! It’s called “church”.

Texas Punidt: is it also possible that those who home school or use private schools would hold values making it less likely that they would avail themselves of psychotherapy? With home schoolers, at least, I would think it pretty likely. For private schooling, I really don’t have a clue — they’re in the class that is generally affluent enough to afford psychotherapy, but the traditional upper class (especially the WASP upper class) has always been suspicious of psychotherapy. In my experience, it’s pretty much an upper-middle class phenomenon.

I think taxpayers paying for thirteen years of schooling for young people is sufficient. Taxpayers also subsidize college education too. I do sympathies with your isolation because the neighborhoods are not filled with mothers at home taking care of their children as was typical in the past so it can be a very isolation experience. As the children grow you also end up being a mother to not only your own kids but all the rest in the neighborhood who are at home alone and naturally gravitate to your house. Somehow other parents think you should feel privileged to take care of their kids, too. I agree that the children also lose out because their are less children to play with in the neighborhoods although three year olds are not in my opinion naturally social and not ready for large blocks of time being with other kids. I think you will have to think of the money you spend as an investment. You sound like a young woman so getting a job in the school system might be ideal for you because for the most part you have the same schedule as your children. It is not easy having children and working full time and the world can be unkind. Good Luck.

Just think if Obama gets elected your child might even get the opportunity to get sex education should they decide to include them in his school education plan as well.Then they could learn to sit in a circle and play spin the bottle.

Lisa: enjoy your massive tax breaks on others’ backs. 18 months at home (while others carry your work for you at work), then you “need” to go back to a job, yet I’m supposed to subsidize you for MORE than $5000 free money annually to send your small children to day care so you and your husband can gather two paychecks? Why, again?

Listen to yourself. The only thing worse is those on benefits who simply presume we will step up to raise their children, feed them, house them — day after day, week after week, year after year, generation after generation.

Odd how imagining you’re being beneficent towards those types leads directly to demanding to know why more set-asides aren’t coming your way. Learned dependence is a bizarre thing. Instead of seeing how damaging it is for taxpayers to be on the hook for the children of irresponsible adults, you decide you want some version of the same handout. Luckily, there’s always some academician willing to correlate excuses to a study outcome — like the ones cited in this absurd article.

What about college? I’m sure there are studies that show the benefits of a ttending a 4-year college or university, while living a away from home. Learn to solve problems on your own, learn to manage your time, learn to manage your finances, living on your own (away from parents for the first time), etc.

“The benefits dissipate because the pressures of life for lower income kids increase as they get older and because of the failures of elementary schools. It seems coldhearted to deny kids those early benefits just because other obstacles interfere with long term benefits.” The same could be said for college.

What about the benefits to the parents. Not having to worry about making the financial sacrifice is priceless. More money in pocket means a better life and the empty nest also means a better life .

So while we’re asking for State sponsored preschool, lets also ask for college tutition. What’s another $10K plus room and board? Let’s just have the government pay for everything.

On a serious note, if you can’t handle having young children, maybe you shouldn’t have had them at this stage in your life. All the whining about the steps, and the naps…please. There are other alternatives to preschool for social interaction, such as Little Gym or Gymboree…which cost hundreds of dollars instead of thousands.

You’re not entitled to send your kids to a $5,000 a year preschool, especially if your income is $40,000. This is what started the whole credit mess…a false sense of entitlement to own a house perpetrated by the government. Live within your means.

No. This is a bad idea. Children need more time to explore and play. Teaching them to sit in a circle can wait.

Read to your child. Give your child books as presents. Always have crayons and coloring books available to them. Let them help in the kitchen. They will learn counting and measuring skills. Play age appropriate music, classics and children’s songs. Encourage them to dance, sing and play along to the music. Teach them manners.

If you are lucky enough to live in an area near other children, playtime in the park is far more constructive than preschool. Look for a playgroup. Start a small playgroup.

I would love to see someone championing helping parents learn to parent, if they didn’t have good parenting role models themselves, rather than putting children in classrooms at such early ages. We do not need to remove children from their parents’ positive influence any sooner than necessary, and we especially do not need to do this at the taxpayers’ expense.

The reason people send their kids to pre-school is to get a break and to meet other parents. Being with a little kid all day is hard and a little lonely, and those that can afford it pay for this service. Access to these benefits does not require a full-blown government bureaucracy and new taxes. How about inviting people over to your house? Meeting a few neighbors in a park? Creating a mother’s group? That’s what people used to do before government became the preferred broker of all human interaction in the eyes of academics and about 40% of the population that has abdicatd personal responsibility for their own lives.

No indeed. My wife and I are amazed at those who seem incapable of training their kids simple academic and social skills and who feel compelled to use a preschool to do such. We speak from experience: my wife taught Montessori for several years, but we then adapted what we liked from that and used it at home when our own children arrived. We made the significant financial sacrifice for her to stay home with them rather than delegating our responsibilities to others.

For us that carried naturally into homeschooling our kids at least through 8th grade (and now we have one finishing his senior year, half at home and half at the community college). The oldest graduated magna cum laude with a double major and a minor in college, and the next is in an Ivy League college. They always tested 2-5 years ahead in reading and well ahead in other subject areas, so I think they survived learning at home ….

Home schooling can be great, but not all parents are equipped to do a good job. What happens to those kids? I know, I know – if you can’t put in the time, don’t have the kids, but that’s hardly realistic. Are stupid people not allowed to have kids? Not all parents are temperamentally suited to being full-time caretakers. Does that mean they can’t have kids? Do we really want to go there? I don’t know what the answer is, but I do think there should be some sort of government-sponsored daycare for those who lack options. We pay enough money for crap programs – I see nothing wrong in investing in our children.

I agree that mothers’ groups are an excellent option. I was a young mother with a baby in Manhattan 20-plus years ago and I can certainly relate to lugging a stroller up 3 flights of stairs. I didn’t know any other parents, so I took my son to programs at places like the 92nd Street Y, where I met other mothers.

As for day care, I sent my son to day care when he was 1-1/2. It was a tough transition for both of us, but I’m glad I hung in there. I’m one of those evil yuppie mothers who wanted a second income. I’m still at that job 21 years later, and boy, with this economic crisis, my husband and I are grateful for my salary. It helped pay for our kids’ college education and kept us debt-free.

I was working 4 days a week when my son was a toddler, and my husband and I gave him “quality time” to the best of our ability. When I had my daughter 3 years later, I opted to work very limited hours (4 hours a week at first) and get a babysitter. Now both kids are grown and I have to say that my son is a tougher, more resilient person than my daughter. He graduated from college last year, has a good job as a financial analyst, is a real team player, very social guy. My daughter’s a sophomore in college and struggling a bit – my son (who has conservative values) teases her and calls her a hippie.

This is purely anecdotal and I don’t know how much is attributable to nature vs. nurture, but my daycare-raised son seems to have better survival skills than my home-raised daughter.

I was lucky to have a job that ended up being very well-paying with flexible hours. I didn’t work full-time till both kids were in school full-time. But not everybody has that luxury.

It is always easier to have others for what you should be doing. It used to be the responsibility of parents to raise their kids…then the Left took control and now we have, not only whining adults, but vicious and whining children. Love and discipline is the best medicine for a child..with one they don’t feel they have the other….you decide!

Home schooling can be great, but not all parents are equipped to do a good job. What happens to those kids? I know, I know – if you can’t put in the time, don’t have the kids, but that’s hardly realistic. Are stupid people not allowed to have kids? Not all parents are temperamentally suited to being full-time caretakers. Does that mean they can’t have kids? Do we really want to go there?

Sure. Why not? Society doesn’t hesitate to poke fun of people who overextend themselves on credit and big life decisions in other areas, so why should reproduction be sacred? Because it hits a little too close to home for the person who is the target of the scrutiny?

Your reasoning is based on the “gotta have it all” mentality. You want kids? You have to sacrifice. It doesn’t mean that you have to give up your identity and everything you enjoy, but it means that your kids’ educational needs come first, even if that means you have to homeschool them to the detriment of your interests and tastes. By being their parent, you are morally obligated to get them the best that you can in terms of providing for their needs.

So let me get this straight. The benefits to lower-income preschoolers vanish as they go from a successful private/public mix of programs into the fully-government funded public elementary schools because those elementary schools are so bad. Yet this author wants to extend the very cause of of that quality collapse down to the currently successful pre-school arena.

Guess what, once pre-school is state-funded like elementary school, you will see the same wretched performance from the institutions that you now do at the elementary level and above.

I find it interesting that she quotes a study that shows that there are no long-term benefits that accrue to pre-K learning, yet then professes that government should offer this service! What?!?

The next thing is, she goes to all this effort, because she thinks it’s best for her kid, but then thinks others should not have to make that very sacrifice. The doing it yourself makes you a Republican, lady. You’ve probably been reading too much NY Times or such. That, or you’ve spent too much time talking to the other Moms from that pre-school.

I admire that you did this. $40k is not much at all in Manhattan. Garbagemen and Valets make twice that. Still, you’re home with your youngest instead of working. Hmm, more Republicanism. Better start reviewing your ideology. Maybe start reading more conservative sources.

Look, everyone, a Repub waiting to sprout! We’re gonna be Mommies and Daddies!

Any of you reading these comments that have not seen the Obama Youth Singers You Tube video need to check it out .
The people who want control of your kids are not so much interested in their well being as they are in their group thinking.
The first impulse of every Utopian is to make the people obey the government.

I think Laura gives the game away with this:
“The fact is that preschool is no longer a luxury”

False Premise #1: Your strong opinion is the same as fact.
False Premise #2: Whatever is not a luxury should be provided by the government.

On the other hand, the great thing about that sentence is that you can insert SO MANY things in place of “preschool”.

“The fact is that healthcare is no longer a luxury”
“The fact is that family medical leave is no longer a luxury”
“The fact is that a computer is no longer a luxury”
“The fact is that a car is no longer a luxury”
“The fact is that high-definition television is no longer a luxury”
“The fact is that infant daycare is no longer a luxury”
It’s a fun game, and you can play all day!

Homeschooling is all swell, but the kids who need the most schooling need to be away from home as much as possible. Kids in the inner city–the ones who don’t know colors or numbers–need to be exposed to people who don’t scream at them, don’t use drugs, do have a job, do have goals and patience. That’s why universal pre-school makes sense. That or Norplant slapped on everyone who gets food stamps.

Babbling on about how you raised your own young’uns with no help from the government doesn’t do anything for a kid growing up in a housing project. Just stop. I’m glad you home schooled so I didn’t have to listen to your ramblings at PTA meetings.

No, I don’t want the government running it, but surely there’s a way to make this happen without having to create a whole new class of members of the teachers’ or municipal employees’ unions.

No, No, NO, absolutely NOT!!! If you want to send your child to preschool, more power to you. I respect your choice. However, universal preschool is completely unacceptable. PARENTS should make the choice about when their child is ready to start school, not the government. There are many other, more flexible ways to socialize children. Some children are not ready to start school at such a young age. Plus, you admit yourself that the “benefits” are temporary. Frankly, I’m tired of the state and “experts” trying to infringe on the rights of parents. Some parents are better than others, and I do support Head Start programs and such. But, no “universal” preschool. No how, no way.

This is an extraordinary thread– looking at all the comments, it’s almost unanimous in opposition. The lefties trolls don’t seem to be around. Maybe if we put the word “Obama” in the title of the article somehow…

Anyway. I’m not about to break the unanimity– at first, I almost thought this article was a parody:

>We lived in a four story, walk-up apartment in Manhattan.

EXCUSE ME?!? I mean, how could you write something more self-parodying? Maybe like this:

“Well, pre-school was SO expensive, we HAD TO SELL ONE OF OUR JAGUARS!! THE 12-CYLINDER!!”

Honest to goodness. I just can’t handle this lady.

>A school bus drove him to school in the morning.

NOOOOO!!! I had to take one of those as a kid– BOTH WAYS!! But I was certain that The Geneva Convention had made them illegal, no? Or was that the International Crimes Against Kiddies Tribunal in Brussels? Anyway– TIAO (This Is An Outrage!)

>But every day at noon, I had to pick him up.

“OH, THE HUMANITY!!!”

> I would strap my newborn baby to my chest and walk a mile and a half and then walk back again…

And sometimes the weather was inclement! And all I had to look forward to was my “four story Manhattan apartment”!! Thank goodness for the Home-Theatre-Roome with its seven-foot LCD screen, or I don’t know if I would have made it. Anybody know an “affordable” psychiatrist?

>I had to carry the stroller down all those stairs using the sideway method that only Manhattan moms know how to do.

And the benefits of a four-story Manhattan apartment are obvious to parents and swinging singles alike. The benefits of a BORG-like uber-government which controls every aspect of our lives in general, and wants control of our kids in particular, is obvious only to lefties.

>Let’s give a hand to those who are struggling to give their kids the opportunities that should be available to all.

The need for socialization for young children (younger than 5) is greatly exaggerated. Most of toddler play is parallel play. As a matter of fact, a lot of their interactions could be more negative than positive. I would not want to throw a bunch of children that age in a room together to abuse each other. I’m sure some daycare places would monitor the play, but none would do the job of a mother or father.

At that age children need a consistent, nurturing authority far more than they need playmates. The socialization they need is better supplied under parental supervision, with siblings, friends, etc.

This is when parental authority is established. If you want your teens to listen to you, you need a strong relationship in the 2 to 5 year range. That is when children need to be taught both that their parents are there for them and that they must submit to their parents’ authority. Daycare makes this far more difficult.

The bottom line is that young children need personal care and nurturing. A hired hand will not ever be able to do the job of the parent.

If you want to foster healthy self-esteem, spend a lot of time playing with your young children. Get on the floor and interact with them. Read to them – a lot.

Teach them the security of knowing that their parents are there for them, that they are the priority – not because of money spent, but because of time spent. Not because they know how to sit in a circle at 4, but because they know they have parents who are there when they are sick, for instance.

Hearing couples argue – sometimes in front of their children – about who will take care of the kid when he is sick makes me sick. No, it makes me angry at the cluelessness of the parents who have made careers the priority. You will not talk about your career in your retirement home, you will talk about your children.

No study will evaluate the strength of a relationship. But that is what a healthy family needs to build. That is the priority. Success is not college placement or no teen pregnancy. Success is a strong trusting relationship that was built when the children were very small.

We’re going to home school our daughter, thank you. I wouldn’t put her in preschool under any circumstances that I can imagine. Whatever happened to parents caring for their own children? Teaching them, playing with them, loving them??? We’re making sacrifices to do that: I could work and we could have more money. Any my daughter could have lots of more useless toys and electronics. But I realize that that is not what she needs, or what we need. Taking money from other people to send my daughter to school to be indoctrinated in worldly culture is not in her best interest, or in the best interest of the country.

“[T]he kids who need the most schooling need to be away from home as much as possible”

If you really feel this way, why not completely fix the problem and remove the children from this environment completely? But the reality is that the same folks who tell us the best place for a child is with its natural mother and even work to remove children from loving foster homes to place them back with a recovering parent are often the same ones who say we now must publicly fund universal pre-K specifically to get those kids out of the bad environment they put them back into.

The left should realize that there is vastly more the government can’t do than it can do. Solving individual social problems and “creating a positive home environment” is not within the government’s power, at least not any government I want to live under. Barring that, the only question I see is at what point parental rights looses and the government takes responsibility for the child for its own protection. I frankly don’t see not being prepared to go to college as a reasonable basis to intrude upon a parent’s right and responsibility to raise their child.

Reread my post. I didn’t say that the boys never leave home. Boys do better when they are not “feminized” by being forced to sit for long periods, when they are allowed to run and play, to be boys, with other children, we didn’t hide our boys, we let them be boys. The oldest just turned 16, a responsible, well adjusted, social, well liked, granpa huggin’ boy who chooses his friends wisely, and before you accuse him of not having many because he wasn’t “socialized” there were over 30 of those friends at his party.

That’s gotta be one of most foolish feel-good arguements I’ve ever heard. Hey Laura, some people here would prefer to homeschool their kids. Studies have shown that homeschooled kids are better equiped for both college and work place. So let’s make homeschooling universal huh? According to your logic, because it works so well for some it would work greatly for EVERYONE! I’m sure you won’t begrudge your tax dollars right? There are studies afterall. And remember the benefits can’t be summarized in a quantitative study. Better yet, let’s make church christian education universal and mandatory. Most Americans attend church or have beliefs close to Christianity and as we know “Mothers and fathers are not illogical”. What that sounds absurd? Well Laura, all I’d done was applied YOUR ABSURD LOGIC.

One of the benefits you are getting from pre-school, which you did not mention, was that your child is absorbing the value you and your husband place on education, on doing more than is required, on sacrificing for something of value. If you really, really want something you find a way. If pre-school becomes universal it becomes another politically correct Head Start. The value will rapidly dissipate as the program tries to scale up to handle the masses. Do not cheapen what you have. If others really, really want it they will find a way also.

“The kids who need the most schooling need to be away from home as much as possible.”

These children shouldn’t go to preschool, the parents should. The parents need help learning to parent. Taking the children away just compounds the problem. If the parents never learn to be responsible adults, they can’t teach their children to be responsible adults. These parents need to be parented, shown how to best use available resources like libraries, shown how to cook at home, shown how to read and play with their children. Then, the next generation will not be helpless.

I could not disagree with your article more wholeheartedly. I have 4 children. When they were young, I had them in daycare and then preschool because I had to work. Yes, the tax credit is not enough when you have more than one child, but, the fact is that I knew that I would have to pay for daycare/preschool before I had my children.

Have I made sacrifices over the years? Of course I have, but I knew that from the time that I decided to have a child. I would no more ask anyone to pay for my decisions, than I would pay for anyone else’s. People who cannot afford what a child needs have no business having children.

I’m glad that you are happy with what your child is learning. I, on the other hand, tought my children those things before the preschool did it. I have tought my children the values that I think they need to know. I think it’s a parent’s responsibility that should not be left to the schools.

While my children learned some things in preschool, I don’t think that they learned enough to warrant giving handouts to those who did not plan for this cost prior to having children.

What it has come to is parents sacrificing their children to their careers and personal wishes “it ain’t needs thats for sure”, rather than sacrificing their wants and desires in order to properly raise their kids. She didn’t have to send her kid to pre-school at age 3; she was already home with a baby. She could have spent that money on arts and crafts supplies and maybe cab fair for playdates at a park. Or, maybe they could’ve made a real sacrifice and moved to a smaller town with a lower cost of living and more room for kids to grow and play, not adult Disneyland playground “Sex in the City” Manhattan with its attendant costs.

This is a person who cares more about themselves than their own children.

Hey,Why stop at three? Why not have French,Mandarin and economics lessons piped in when the future yuppie scum is still in utero? It’s never too early to pass up an opportunity to regiment, train and indoctrinate, a future futures,trader,in greed.LEAVE THE FREAKING KIDS ALONE! LET ‘EM HAVE A CHILDHOOD!

Hey,why stop at three? It’s never too early to regiment,train,and indoctrinate future yuppie scum in greed.Let’s pipe in Mandarin, French,and finance theory in utero,that way,they’ll be robotically ready for a really good kindergarten, high school, the Ivy leaugues,Biz school, wall Street,and the respect of their worthless parents. LET THE FREAKING KIDS HAVE A CHILDHOOD!

How about this crazy idea? How about getting tax money to pay for homeschooling? Seriously. States pay an average now of $10k/yr per student. Pay some people half that to keep their kids home with an established home-school curriculum. Proven results are required.

Forget vouchers! OMG! The potential is enormous, especially in the decimation of the teachers’ union and the social indoctrination of the country. The cost savings are huge! It would make it financially feasible for more people to home school. Quality of education would go up. Public behavior would improve. I could go on, but… can you just see it?

This is one of the saddest articles I’ve read. Why would anyone want their child to separate from them at age three? The children are grown and gone in a flash as it is. We don’t need to hurry them out of the natural environment for a child–his family!

I know it is easy for the parent staying at home to feel isolated, but social occasions for parents and children are available. And if not, one can always organize one.

Young children benefit so much from a kind of skeletal structure–regular meals, naps, and bedtime with LOTS of free play time in between. They need lots of time to explore on their own without a lot of time constraints and early childhood is about the only time available for that.

What they need to learn about socialization is best learned in the family, anyway. Three year olds do not learn good social skills from other three year olds because we don’t have good social skills when we are three!

As to TV, most experts recommend no TV until at least age 2, but postponing it even longer is even better. Children need to experience the real world, not a virtual one.

Single parent families have a lot fewer options about, well, many things, but specifically about keeping a child at home as long as possible. However, I would encourage two parent families to make every sacrifice you can to keep the children at home as long as possible. No one has your child’s welfare at heart more than you. No one knows your child’s strength’s and weaknesses as well as you. No one can teach him how to get along in the world as well as you.

Forcing a child to submit to a regimented schedule (Why does he need to learn to sit quietly in a circle? I’ve never had to do that even once in my adult life.) just teaches him to unthinkingly submit–not a good learned behavior for anyone.

You know, I need to stop. Just please, mamas and daddies, keep your children under your own influence, not in such an artificial environment as an institution. Especially at age three.

By the way, I see Boris launched the socialization canard early in the comments…without a shred of backup.

Without a shred of backup because it’s pure myth. In fact, the State school system, being technically unconstitutional, has exposed itself for the unmitigated failure it is, as has it’s primary breeding ground, the entire inner city/urban blightscape it helps create year after year, dependent generation after dependent generation.

You can’t possibly be serious but somehow I’m sure you probably are.

When you document support for your nonsense, Boris, kindly also cite where the Constitution enumerates government schools. You cannot do either.

TEN – The Constitution does mention schools. Well, not specifically. It does mention in the Preamble, “promote the general welfare”. Schools have been a big key to our economic domination of the world. Our dominance is slipping with the slipping of our education advantage.

Fact is, though, the higher the level of government that controls our education system, the worse the results will be. If you have education controls no higher than district level, the education will be better, as people see it as being within their control. It becomes very personal, then, as opposed to some far-off bureaucracy.

Nice post. I was checking constantly this weblog and I am inspired! Extremely useful information particularly the closing section I take care of such information much. I used to be seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and good luck.